women and health care politics

Mormovies is a Randian, and what he’s saying is consistent with the Randian way of thought—that rights are derived from our nature as rational creatures, that only individuals have rights, and that the government can either respect or violate (not grant) rights. I’ve talked to enough Objectivists to know there are some gaping holes in the theory of where rights come from, but I think he’s right in at least one sense. If we’re going to talk about universal human rights—as we do anytime we criticize the Taliban for stoning people for blasphemy—we are implicitly admitting that human rights do not derive from government. If you’ve ever talked about a government violating the rights of its citizens, you have made this admission. Sam Harris’s conception of where rights come from is the closest to my own, when he says that they derive from the experiences of conscious creatures. If a lifeform has the capacity to suffer, it has rights. The government can either uphold or violate rights, but it cannot remove them. Legal rights are a different topic, and are obviously whatever the government says they are.

A common argument against Liberatarianism is that Libertarians make the same use of public services as anyone else. This argument never made sense to me, for two reasons:

Firstly, Libertarians are not (usually) anarchists. I’ve never met a Libertarian who doesn’t think the police and military are proper functions of a legitimate government. Most will even admit that taxation and fundamental infrastructure are necessary functions of government. Secondly, even for the ones that are true anarchists, using public services is not a contradiction. After all, why should I forego services that my tax dollars help to pay for?

It is interesting that my thread has branched off into a much wider-ranging conversation than I intended.

Mormovies is a Randian, and what he’s saying is consistent with the Randian way of thought—that rights are derived from our nature as rational creatures, that only individuals have rights, and that the government can either respect or violate (not grant) rights. I’ve talked to enough Objectivists to know there are some gaping holes in the theory of where rights come from, but I think he’s right in at least one sense. If we’re going to talk about universal human rights—as we do anytime we criticize the Taliban for stoning people for blasphemy—we are implicitly admitting that human rights do not derive from government. If you’ve ever talked about a government violating the rights of its citizens, you have made this admission. Sam Harris’s conception of where rights come from is the closest to my own, when he says that they derive from the experiences of conscious creatures. If a lifeform has the capacity to suffer, it has rights. The government can either uphold or violate rights, but it cannot remove them. Legal rights are a different topic, and are obviously whatever the government says they are.

A common argument against Liberatarianism is that Libertarians make the same use of public services as anyone else. This argument never made sense to me, for two reasons:

Firstly, Libertarians are not (usually) anarchists. I’ve never met a Libertarian who doesn’t think the police and military are proper functions of a legitimate government. Most will even admit that taxation and fundamental infrastructure are necessary functions of government. Secondly, even for the ones that are true anarchists, using public services is not a contradiction. After all, why should I forego services that my tax dollars help to pay for?

It is interesting that my thread has branched off into a much wider-ranging conversation than I intended.

The Wrath wrote:
“If a lifeform has the capacity to suffer, it has rights.”

Does a raccoon have rights?
What about a trout?
What about the worm the fisherman uses to catch the trout?
What is your definition of the word “right”?

Again, Wrath, “rights” are a construct. There are no rights in nature, there is only power—expressed or implied—and that goes for humans too. Try asserting your rights without the threat of personal or governmental power and see how far you get. The reason that 6’4’ deputy sheriff with the sidearm is effective is because he represents power. We talk as if rights were some universal thing but rights are decided by people, and what one group of people contend are rights may very well be rejected by another. If a society says that individuals or organizations have certain rights and that society has the power to assert those rights—only then do those rights exist.

Again, Wrath, “rights” are a construct. There are no rights in nature, there is only power—expressed or implied—and that applies to humans too. Try asserting your rights without the threat of personal or governmental power and see how far you get. The reason that 6’4’ deputy sheriff with the sidearm is effective is because he represents power. We talk as if rights were some universal thing but rights are decided by people, and what one group of people contend are rights may very well be rejected by another. If a society says that individuals or organizations have certain rights and that society has the power to assert those rights—only then do those rights exist.

Without getting into a theory or whether or not rights exist, few people who say that they do not exist behave as though they actually believe that. If you don’t believe rights exist, then why do you bother engaging in political discussions about health care? Why do you condemn (as I’m sure you do) the Taliban and the Nazis?

Without getting into a theory or whether or not rights exist, few people who say that they do not exist behave as though they actually believe that. If you don’t believe rights exist, then why do you bother engaging in political discussions about health care? Why do you condemn (as I’m sure you do) the Taliban and the Nazis?

Oh that’s just part of the program that I call me.
Hey…...as long as we are talking about rights…....is there really such things as right and left?

toombaru, that strikes me as a lazy answer. If you truly believe there is no such thing as rights, then you cannot intellectually justify acting like there are. If it’s just you promoting a moral code that benefits you the most, then it makes you essentially no different from other who do the same—perhaps just with less benevolent codes.

How can you even make a political argument without some theory of rights at its base? If you have one but, in the end, think that it’s BS, then why bother even building political views on it?

toombaru, that strikes me as a lazy answer. If you truly believe there is no such thing as rights, then you cannot intellectually justify acting like there are. If it’s just you promoting a moral code that benefits you the most, then it makes you essentially no different from other who do the same—perhaps just with less benevolent codes.

How can you even make a political argument without some theory of rights at its base? If you have one but, in the end, think that it’s BS, then why bother even building political views on it?

You imagine that a mind can combine a vast amount of misinformation and express a coherent argument on matters that have no actual reality.
To discuss such thing as rights and religion can only expand the mind’s shadowland.
That also includes all political thought.